There are hasty realizations, dilemmas, …

Truth-functionality is the most important concept in propositional logic. Some compound propositions are truth-functional and some are not. In this essay, I explain the difference between truth-functional compound propositions and non-truth-functional compound propositions, using what I call “belief statements” as an example of the latter. My explanation of why belief statements are not truth-functional is both more thorough and (I submit) more illuminating than the explanations provided by the leading logic textbooks. The authors of these textbooks may wish to incorporate some of my suggestions into future editions. Alternatively, they may direct their students to this essay for edification [1]. 

There is intellectual autonomy and intellectual solidarity.

Similarly, as philosopher Richard Paul explains, many social institutions today “depend heavily on passive acceptance of the status quo, whether intellectual, political, or economic.” The result, he adds, is that “large masses of people are unknowing conformists in thought and deed. They are like mirrors reflecting the belief systems and values of those who surround them. They lack the intellectual skills and incentive to think for themselves. They are intellectually conforming thinkers” [2]. Thomas Reid [3] is a Scottish philosopher best known for his philosophical method, his theory of perception and its wide implications on epistemology, and as the developer and defender of an agent-causal theory of free will. In these and other areas he offers perceptive and important criticisms of the philosophy of Locke, Berkeley and especially Hume. He is also well known for his criticisms of Locke's view of personal identity and Hume's view of causation [3]. 

“And the challenge comes in a section that Reid entitled, of the analogy between perception and the credit we give human testimony. So, Reid argued that trusting testimony is just like trusting your senses, trusting what you see around you.” [4]

Much of the discussion over our most contested issues in politics and ethics is characterized by polarization. Rather than even, honest disagreement, our public exchange is characterized by confusion, caricature, and defining one’s self in binary opposition to one’s opponent. One solution to this problem is an emphasis on what David Hollenbach calls intellectual solidarity [5]. 

It is characterized by engagement, listening, and a willingness to change one’s mind. This article shows that even the most polarizing arguments imaginable, like those over abortion, can become manageable and even productive in the context of intellectual solidarity. 

Causal inferences are the only way we can go beyond the evidence of our senses and memories. In making them, we suppose there is some connection between present facts and what we infer from them. But what is this connection? How is it established? [6]

Hume concludes you should never believe in a miracle on the basis of testimony. 

Statement of the Dilemma

Suppose A exists but not believed by B and suppose B exists but not believed by A. Neither characters support each other.

• A has to do something so that B believes in him.

B has to do something so that A believes in him

• A has to do something enough so that his presence is acknowledge by B

• B has to do something enough so that his presence is acknowledged by A

• But what if C believes in A, the identity dilemma through B is rejected

• There may be some percentage of belief.

In the introduction, David Hume asserts that we must double check testimonies but is it possible in sometimes? Thomas Reid argues that testimonies appeal like in our senses but is it perfect always?

The Statement Paradox

• I am an honest person. Everybody lies so this is a paradox

• I am a liar. Since everybody lies, I am telling the truth

• We could also dig well to this paradox

Examples:

• Atheism

• Atheism is the disbelief of deities, including God [7]

• Doubt in God is a lot different from the total disbelief in God. Most if not all, sometimes doubt the power and presence of God in their lives. It has to do with influence theory

Influence Theory

Influence theory is the amount of influence a particular being has made to an individual.

Wrong definition

Each word has a definition. We must correctly define words and its meanings.

Mispronunciation

Each word has a pronunciation. Pronunciation matters in communication.

Distrust

We may trust beings and ourselves following them.

Applications:

• Applications could range from the belief of God to the definition of words and entities

• Motives and faults could be found which may affect how we perceive the action [8]

• There are good influences and bad influences. Does the end justify the means or does the means justify the end?

• Who first showed love? Is it you? Is it believed that it is our forefathers? Literature shows that it is God. God’s influence is showed through literature 

• Who will contest that it is Adam and Eve as our first parents?

• New words are formed

• Love could be defined

• Corrections should be employed

• How often do we show and tell the truth?

We must therefore be careful with our actions. We may be defined. There are paradoxes which statements are logically self-contradictory. There are foundations of logic like processes. How is it to establish an identity? With the influences we partake and impart. 

1. Burgess-Jackson, Keith. “Why Belief Statements Are Not Truth-Functional.” Philosophy Study, vol. 10, no. 11, 2020, pp. 683–688.

2. “Intellectual Autonomy.” Iva Long Beach, 2020, http://www.ivalongbeach.org/community/blog/posts-on-master-virtues/122-intellectual-autonomy. Accessed 29 December 2020.

3. “Thomas Reid.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2014, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reid/. First published August 2000; substantive revision September 2014.

4.  “Reid’s Challenge to Hume.” Coursera, 2020, https://www.coursera.org/learn/philosophy/lecture/dCFSq/reids-challenge-to-hume. Accessed 29 December 2020.

5. Camosy, Charles C. “Intellectual Solidarity and Transcending Polarized Discourse.” Political Theology, vol. 15, no. 1, 2014, pp. 40–52.

6. “David Hume.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/#Cau. First published February 2001; substantive revision April 2019.

7. “Atheism.” Oxford Dictionaries, Oxford University Press, 2019.

8. Fortunado, I.T. “Risk and Certainty, Love and Fault and Intention and Motive as Bases for Decision Making and Judgment.” South Asian Research Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 2, no. 6, November–December 2020, pp. 526–529.